May 14, 2008 News+Opinion » Features

County poised for 20 more years of burning garbage 

Charleston's Pit of Fire

by Stratton Lawrence
Manager Lee Bazzle stands by the furnace where our trash is burned
  • Stratton Lawrence
  • Manager Lee Bazzle stands by the furnace where our trash is burned

Latest in Features

Near Spruill Avenue in North Charleston, along the bank of Shipyard Creek, sits a massive, fiery cauldron. After a garbage truck empties the trash can in front of your house, four out of five times it then heads toward Charleston County's incinerator, the only municipal trash-burning facility still operating in South Carolina. Once there, plastic bottles, batteries, candy wrappers, dirty diapers, and banana peels are shoved together into the scorching inferno, reducing their total mass by over two-thirds. The ash that's left (47,000 tons last year) is dumped in the landfill. Much of the mercury, particulate matter, and poisonous dioxins created are captured by activated charcoal and static electricity in an "electrostatic precipitator." But take a not-too-deep breath ... what's not caught blows into the air over Charleston.

"We've been burning trash since the days of the cave man," says Bob Guild, a Columbia, S.C., lawyer who's worked on several incinerator cases. "You can dress people up in white outfits and have sophisticated machines, but the bottom line is we're using a technology about as primitive as human culture itself to manage our waste."

Two months ago, the incinerator was all but toast. Due to costs and environmental concerns, Charleston County Council voted to discontinue its use when operator Veolia-Montenay's current contract expired, instead diverting future trash to the Bees Ferry and pending Adams Run landfills. With 80 percent of our garbage currently being burned (230,000 tons each year), that would have meant the rapid growth of our own Mt. Trashmore in West Ashley. Bees Ferry-area homeowners then became upset about a pile of trash potentially as high as the round Holiday Inn. Veolia-Montenay came back with a plan to install a $10 million "bag house" vacuum that would cut mercury emissions by 70 percent and particulate matter in half, and Charleston County's Solid Waste department showed interest.

Councilwoman Colleen Condon now says it's "extremely likely" that they'll go forward with the incinerator, extending Veolia-Montenay's contract for 20 more years, with a possible provision allowing for 10 more in addition to that.

"The agreement we have on principle is very satisfactory to most council members. We just have to fine-tune the details about emissions levels," she says.

Our incinerator currently emits 129 pounds of mercury into the air each year from batteries, light bulbs, and other items that people put in the trash. Only four power plants in the state emit more. Even minute amounts of mercury in our body can effect neurological development, and it's a suspected factor in the autism epidemic. The 2,600 degree temperatures in the furnace also create a prime habitat for the creation of dioxins, among the most toxic chemicals to the human body and environment.

Gregg Varner, the county's director of solid waste, stresses that no renewal agreement has yet been signed and that the current contract doesn't end until 2010, but council's Special Finance Committee will discuss the issue at their May 20 meeting. He says the improvements include a turbine upgrade, which will allow the creation of more electricity from the incineration process. Currently, the "waste-to-energy" plant generates enough to power 7,000 to 10,000 homes, which is used to run the incinerator and provide revenue by selling the excess to North Carolina utility CP&L. Varner also touts a ferrous metal recovery system which will pull metal scraps from the ash pile and allow them to be recycled.

Coinciding with the decision to extend the incinerator's life at least 20 years, County Council has proposed a "Green Ribbon Committee" to explore ways of making the county's operations more environmentally responsible. Councilwoman Condon says that at a recent solid waste public meeting, constituents expressed a desire for a comprehensive strategy to promote recycling and reduce waste.

But the technicalities of the incinerator's contract could actually discourage the active pursuit of that goal. The contract has a minimum tonnage agreement that assures Veolia-Montenay 175,000 tons of garbage each year. The county's cost to incinerate decreases after meeting that goal, creating an economic incentive to burn as much as possible.

Kevin Richardson, a local soil and waste expert and a member of the subcommittee on waste and recycling for the city of Charleston's Green Council, worries that such agreements will preclude future efforts to pick up recycling from businesses, a service currently not offered by the county. Ideas like weighing household trash with a scale on the truck, and charging users accordingly, might also be discouraged.

"I just don't see how burning trash is a good way to manage the situation, especially when there's so many viable alternatives that are good for the environment, people, and business," says Richardson. "I think that within the next 20 years, it'll be common knowledge that burning trash is terrible, so why would we legally bind ourselves to it for 20 years now, when we know it's a bad thing to do?"

Attorney Guild points out that federal cap-and-trade carbon emission laws could also end up costing the county money if imposed during the duration of a binding contract.

"It's a devil's bargain what we do with our waste, because we're inevitably transferring it from one medium to another, whether it's a hole in the ground or into the air," says Guild. "But by the process of incineration, you liberate large volumes of mobile materials into the atmosphere that are hazardous to human health. It's a way of spreading our pollution very broadly to our lungs and environment."

The value of recyclables continues to rise, as does the cost of waste disposal. With the current contract good until 2010, environmentalists like Guild and Richardson hope that council will carefully consider profitable alternatives before fast-tracking the county into 20 more years of burn, baby, burn.

Comments (6) RSS

Showing 1-5 of 6

Add a comment | All comments »

Stratton!!!!

What an article....I guess your editors do not read my email. Nor do you do your HOMEWORK before you write a report. Son....type in www.startech.net and read!! The real story that is not told; is the reality that, ALL our elected officials, Gregg Varner, and that "Special" committee by all printed accounts have their heads in the sand!! What needs to be done is to close the Incinerator and ALL landfills by installing GAS PLASMAFYING machines. If you want to print real news that will have an impact on all South Carolinians including your children, start printing stories about the money and energy that can be generated from our trash.

Posted by zoomru on May 17, 2008 at 9:44 PM | Report this comment

There is general agreement among many West Ashley residents that burning trash is hazardous, however, bringing the massive amounts of garbage into the Bees Ferry Landfill is also a serious public health and quality of life issue. This area has been growing rapidly with the blessing of the city and county, yet some our elected representatives feel that is permissible to disregard the future of the families and businesses that will be located in this corridor bye expanding the landfill and dumping toxic waste here.

The problem of garbage will not go away. We will continue to create waste. However, it would benefit us all if the city, county, and state encourage recycling, improve the incinerator, and increase the waste-to-energy efforts as we recycle and improve our quality of life.

Posted by lrdblock on May 17, 2008 at 7:13 PM | Report this comment

Folks, neither the incinerator nor the landfill is the right whole answer, but instead a comprehensive solid waste plan that minimizes waste, and then finds the least invasive way to get rid of the waste remaining. I am committed to a comprehensive solid waste plan that dramatically increases recycling and reduces waste. The question will still remain how best to dispose of what waste there still is. We need all the best and brightest minds contributing their thoughts on what we should be doing as a total solution. Joe McKeown and I have already sought and received Council approval to set up a GREEN Ribbon Committee to look at our sustainability and waste plans. So please email me your ideas on what the County should do on the overall issues of waste and recycling. I want as much input as you are willing to give! colleen@colleencondon.com

Posted by colleencondon on May 15, 2008 at 2:46 PM | Report this comment

Kudo's to the County Council for seeing the greater good. The decision to resume incinerator operations is the right one indeed. Truthseeker should look deeper at the what is truely at stake and has very little concerns for the health of those living in the areas around a potential Mt. Trashmore. Maybe we should find some land near Wando high school in behind Park West for the next pile to be constructed rather than Adams Run. getReal obviously confuses local issues with big politics in thinking the Bush administration has any impact on our local landfills. Going 'green' is the correct direction and this problem has dynamic fixes. Incineration can be environmentally sound - recycling is a must - individual ownership for the things we place in our trash goes along way. Together they prove better solutions than one fix all decision to dump it here - then here - then here.

Posted by ChuckTownNative on May 15, 2008 at 1:43 PM | Report this comment

As if the neck area isn't already drowning in pollution! The port, the coal ships, Macalloy superfund site, Navy dumping for decades. Our elected and state (DHEC) employees have failed us miserably. We must delay any permitting until the current criminal Bush regime is gone and the EPA and others (DHEC) are investigated for allowing these corporate criminals free reign to pollute at will. It was no accident that the announcement of the closure was met with strong opposition. It was planned that way. As well as the apparent capitulation resulting from the publics concerns. I wonder who they think is going to pick up the tab for the proposed upgrades?

Posted by getreal on May 14, 2008 at 10:02 PM | Report this comment

Add a comment

Classified Listings
  • Tokyo Bistro Just ate lunch there this week and it was great! They have a trendy, but… -CHS291
  • Il Cortile Del Re We went to Il Cortile after the Mike Moran Furniture show at Rebekah Jacob Gallery… -project_runwayHottie
  • Baked Heaven!!! The service was friendly & suggestive not to mention knowledgable on all the incredible… -alicia66
  • A.C.'s Bar and Grill Love A.C.'s brunch. Chicken and waffles are the best cure for a hangover. If you… -chaslovah
  • Tokyo Bistro The Sushi is AWESOME, their Dancing Dragon Roll is the best sushi I have ever… -Megan
Most Viewed


Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2009, Charleston City Paper   RSS